Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
Dec 7, 2012 7:00pm EST
the report that the u.p. report filed for the u.n.gen assembly when it was highlight, quote, pattern of systemic violations of human rights. iran has refused access to the united nations for several years, and the ug general assembly submitted a report in which he said he was, quote, deeply troubled by increased numbers of executions. a pew addition, arbitrary arrests and detention, unfair trials, torture, and ill treatment, and crackdown on human rights activityist, lawyers, journalist, and opposition activists, and to draw an example from the week's news theres actually what i gas what qualifies in iran for a slight bit of goodness. a well-known human rights lawyer ended her 49-day hunger strike on december 4th. her name is nasarn, and she has in prison since 2010, and the regime imposed a travel ban on her husband and her daughter so she was on a hunger strike for 49 days, and has actually stopped the hunger strike amid word the regime is going to lift the travel ban. so, the victories are small and hard-on and the news is relentlessly negative, but it comes at an interesting mome
FOX News
Dec 5, 2012 4:00pm PST
or russia. u.n. secretary general was asked about the asylum question today he did not seem to favor the idea. listen. >> the united nations must not allow any impunity whoever commits gross violation of human rights must be held accountable and should be brought to justice. >> that sentiment was echoed by officials at the u.s. state department who said there has to be, quote: accountability. the counter argument to that is that perhaps anything that gets assad out of syria and stops the slaughter of civilians might be worth thinking about, harris. >> some people may be wondering what happens if in fact assad does go. we still haven't seen united opposition of all those rebels to replace him. >> we certainly have not seen anything like a united opposition. the rebels say that he they are seeking more of a unified political leadership but it is hard to come by because there are so many groups involved in pposition movement from secular democrats who began this simply as a way to gain more democracy in syria to hard line islamist and even al qaeda groups. one of those hard line groups
Dec 7, 2012 6:00am EST
by the plo which recently after four years of not negotiating with the us rail ris went to the u.n. and asked for upgraded status. do the israelis have anyone to negotiability a peace process with at this point, and if they didn't negotiate, and let's suppose that abbas came tomorrow to negotiate these process after four years of refusing to do so without concessions in advance, could he sign a pape or that would be at all -- a paper that would be at all meaningful? would he be able to bring hamas into it which is dedicate today the extermination of israel? is there any way to believe that israel could have a separate peace or have peace for the -- before the rest of the world settles this mess with islamism? >> well, it's possible, but it's very hard at this point to imagine. it would not come easily for all the questions, for all the reasons that your questions embody. i mean, in the first place, um, right now israel faces a palestinian people that are divided between two governments. so making peace with one wouldn't give them the security or the confidence to take the risks that they will
Dec 6, 2012 1:00pm EST
made it very clear at the u.n. general assembly where the israeli red line is. but there is an argument that there is no american red line, there is an american invisible line, and no one is sure where it is. not the iranians, not us, not the israelis. do you share that concern? is there anything we can do to establish a more conclusive and defined redline so that it helps us in our negotiating strategy with the iranians? as we were reminded this morning, persians negotiate in the bazaar. do we have an america that we can more clearly defined -- american red line that we can more clearly define? >> there are a couple of reasons by the military threat is important. as sandy indicated, the iranians to respond to credible threats of force. -- do respond to credible threats of force. if you read the biographies of the hostage-takers, they said they were afraid ronald reagan was going to act like a cowboy. the release the hostages the minute he was sworn in. the soviets threatened to bomb tehran, and the hostages were let go. it is important to note that the iran-iraq war came to win and win
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)